Category Archives: Planning

Southern Resident killer whales, cherished by many Puget Sound
residents, are on a course headed for extinction, and they could
enter a death spiral in the not-so-distant future.

It is time that people face this harsh reality, Ken Balcomb told
me, as we discussed the latest death among the three pods of orcas.
A 2-year-old male orca designated J-52 and known as Sonic died
tragically about two weeks ago.

Two-year-old J-52, known as
Sonic, swims with his mother J-36, or Alki, on Sept. 15. This may
have been the last day Sonic was seen alive.Photo: Ken Balcomb, Center for Whale
Research

The young orca was last seen in emaciated condition, barely
surfacing and hanging onto life near the entrance to the Strait of
Juan de Fuca on Sept. 15. Ken, director of the Center for Whale
Research, said the young whale was attended to by his mother Alki,
or J-36, along with a male orca, L-85, known as Mystery — who may
have been Sonic’s father, but more about that later.

Extinction, Ken told me, is “very real” — not some ploy to
obtain research dollars. The population of endangered Southern
Residents has now dropped to 76 — the lowest level since 1984. Most
experts agree that a shortage of chinook salmon — the primary prey
of the orcas — is the greatest problem facing the whales.

Last week, the Leadership Council — the governing body of the
Puget Sound Partnership — discussed what role the partnership
should play to “accelerate and amplify efforts” to restore chinook
salmon runs and save the orcas. Chinook themselves are listed as a
threatened species.

Graph: Center for
Biological Diversity

Puget Sound Partnership is charged by the Legislature with
coordinating the restoration of Puget Sound, including the recovery
of fish and wildlife populations.

The Leadership Council delayed action on a
formal resolution (PDF 149 kb) in order to allow its staff time
to identify specific actions that could be taken. Although the
resolution contains the right language, it is not enough for the
council to merely show support for an idea, said Council Chairman
Jay Manning.

Sonic was one of the whales born during the much-acclaimed “baby
boom” from late 2014 through 2015. With his death, three of the six
whales born in J pod during that period have now died. No new
calves have been born in any of the Southern Resident pods in
nearly a year.

Meanwhile, two orca moms — 23-year-old Polaris (J-28) and
42-year-old Samish (J-14) — died near the end of 2016. Those deaths
were followed by the loss of Granny (J-2), the J-pod matriarch said
to have lived more than a century. Another death was that of
Doublestuf, an 18-year-old male who died last December.

Three orcas were born in L pod during the baby boom, and none of
those whales has been reported missing so far.

Ken believes he witnessed the final hours of life for young
Sonic, who was lethargic and barely surfacing as the sun set on the
evening of Sept. 15. Two adults — Sonic’s mother and Mystery — were
the only orcas present, while the rest of J pod foraged about five
miles away.

Sonic seen with his mother in
June.Photo: Ken Balcomb, Center for Whale
Research

That was the last time anyone saw Sonic, although his mother
Alki as well as Mystery were back with J pod during the next
observation four days later. Ken reported that Alki seemed
distressed, as often happens when a mother loses an offspring.

Ken admits that he is speculating when he says that Mystery may
have been Sonic’s father. It makes for a good story, but there
could be other reasons why the older male stayed with the mother
and calf. Still, researchers are engaged in studies that point to
the idea that mature killer whales may actually choose a mate
rather than engaging in random encounters. I’m looking forward to
the upcoming report.

I must admit that this issue of extinction has been creeping up
on me, and it’s not something that anyone wants to face. Food is
the big issue, and chinook salmon have been in short supply of
late. It will be worth watching as the whales forage on chum
salmon, as they are known to do in the fall months.

“This population cannot survive without food year-round,” Ken
wrote in a news
release. “Individuals metabolize their toxic blubber and body
fats when they do not get enough to eat to sustain their bodies and
their babies. Your diet doctor can advise you about that.

“All indications (population number, foraging spread, days of
occurrence in the Salish Sea, body condition, and live birth
rate/neonate survival) are pointing toward a predator population
that is prey-limited and nonviable,” he added.

The Center for Biological Diversity, which was involved in the
initial lawsuit that led to the endangered listing for the whales,
is calling upon the NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service to
move quickly to protect orca habitat along the coasts of
Washington, Oregon and California. Currently designated critical
habitat is limited to Puget Sound, even though the whales are known
to roam widely along the coast.

“The death of another killer whale puts this iconic population
on a dangerous path toward extinction,” Catherine Kilduff of CBD
said in a
news release. “If these whales are going to survive, we need to
move quickly. Five years from now, it may be too late.”

How fast the whales will go extinct is hard to determine,
experts say, but the current population is headed downward at an
alarming rate, no matter how one analyzes the problem.

“I would say we are already in a very dangerous situation,” said
Lance Barrett-Lennard, senior marine mammal researcher at the
Vancouver Aquarium. “If this trajectory continues and we lose two
or three more from deaths or unsuccessful birth, we will be in a
real spiral,” he told reporter Richard Watts of the
Times Colonist in Victoria, B.C.

A
five-year status review (PDF 4.3 mb), completed last December
by NMFS, takes into account the number of reproductive males and
females among the Southern Residents, the reproductive rates, and
the ratio of female to male births (more males are being born). As
the population declines, the risk of inbreeding — and even more
reproductive problems — can result.

Eric Ward of NOAA, who helped write the status report, said the
agency often estimates an extinction risk for endangered
populations, but the actual number of Southern Residents is too
small to produce a reliable number. Too many things can happen to
speed up the race toward extinction, but it is clear that the
population will continue to decline unless something changes.

As Ken describes it in simple terms, Southern Resident females
should be capable of producing an offspring every three years. With
27 reproductive females, we should be seeing nine new babies each
year. In reality, the average female produces one offspring every
nine years, which is just three per year for all three pods. That
is not enough to keep up with the death rate in recent years. To
make things worse, reproductive females have been dying long before
their time — and before they can help boost the population.

Experts talk about “quasi-extinction,” a future time when the
number of Southern Residents reaches perhaps 30 animals, at which
point the population is too small to recover no matter what
happens. Some say the population is now on the edge of a death
spiral, which may require heroic actions to push the population
back onto a recovery course.

As described in the five-year status review, prey shortage is
not the only problem confronting the Southern Residents. The
animals are known to contain high levels of toxic chemicals, which
can affect their immune systems and overall health as well as their
reproductive rates. Vessel noise can make it harder for them to
find fish to eat. On top of those problems is the constant threat
of a major oil spill, which could kill enough orcas to take the
population down to a nonviable number.

The graph shows the probability
that the Southern Resident population will fall below a given
number (N) after 100 years. Falling below 30 animals is considered
quasi-extinction. The blue line shows recent conditions. Lines to
the left show low chinook abundance, and lines to the right show
higher abundance.Graphic: Lacy report, Raincoast Conservation
Foundation

Despite the uncertainties, Robert Lacey of Chicago Zoological
Society and his associates calculated in 2015 that under recent
conditions the Southern Resident population faces a 9 percent
chance of falling to the quasi-extinction level within 100 years.
Worsening conditions could send that rate into a tailspin. See
report for Raincoast
Conservation Foundation.

What I found most informative was how the probability of
extinction changes dramatically with food supply. (See the second
graph on this page.) A 10 percent decline in chinook salmon raises
the quasi-extinction risk from 9 percent to 73 percent, and a 20
percent decline raises the risk to more than 99 percent.

On the other hand, if chinook numbers can be increased by 20
percent, the whales would increase their population at a rate that
would ensure the population’s survival, all other things being
equal. Two additional lines on the graph represent a gradual
decline of chinook as a result of climate change over the next 100
years — a condition that also poses dangerous risks to the orca
population.

“Such collaborative efforts must be done for the benefit of both
the SRKW and chinook fish populations, without losing sight of the
continuing need to maintain and improve the genetic diversity of
these fish populations …” states the letter.

Rein Attemann of Washington Environmental Council said salmon on
the Columbia and Snake rivers, as well as he Fraser River in
British Columbia, are “vitally important” to the recovery of the
Southern Resident killer whales, and Puget Sound efforts should be
coordinated with other programs.

Jim Waddell, a retired civil engineer with the Army Corps of
Engineers, spoke forcefully about the need to save chinook salmon
and the Southern Residents, starting by tearing down dams on the
Snake River.

“We are out of time,” Waddell said. “The Corps of Engineers have
it within their power to begin breaching the dams within months….
The orcas cannot survive without those chinook.”

An environmental impact statement on chinook recovery includes
the option of breaching the dams, something that could be pushed
forward quickly, he said.

“Breaching the Snake River dams is the only possibility of
recovery,” Waddell said. “There is nothing left.”

Stephanie Solien, a member of the Leadership Council, said
speaking up for orcas in the fashion proposed is not something the
council has done before, but “we do have a responsibility to these
amazing animals and to the chinook and to the tribes.”

The council should work out a strategy of action before moving
forward, she added, but “we better get to moving on it.”

Democratic members of Washington state’s congressional
delegation are calling on federal agencies to take immediate steps
to minimize damage from the net pen collapse and release of
Atlantic salmon near Cypress Island. Read the
news release.

“Pacific salmon are central to our economy, our culture, and our
environment in the Pacific Northwest and are a critical part of
marine and estuarine ecosystems in Washington state,” the letter
states. “Most concerning is the threat farmed Atlantic salmon pose
to the wild Pacific salmon populations stocks in Puget Sound.
Farmed salmon tend to be larger and could outcompete wild salmon
for critical resources, such as prey and preferred habitat, which
is important for spawning. Tribes, fishermen, and state agencies
are working to respond to the escapement, but the scale of the
release calls for immediate and direct federal response….”

Meanwhile, a public hearing about the expansion of the Port
Angeles net pen operation has been cancelled at the request of the
owner, Cooke Aquaculture. Read the
letter from Steve Gray (PDF 155 kb), Clallam County’s deputy
planning director.
—–

The recent collapse of salmon pens near the San Juan Islands
could become a turning point in the war against salmon farming that
is being waged by environmental groups in Puget Sound.

Yesterday, Gov. Jay Inslee and Commissioner of Public Lands
Hillary Franz announced a moratorium on new state leases or permits
for any fish farms using Atlantic salmon. The moratorium will
remain in place until state officials can fully review the escape
of more than 300,000 Atlantic salmon from net pens near Cypress
Island, according to a
joint announcement (PDF 107 kb).

The video, by Glenn Farley and Travis Pittman of KING 5
News, was posted Friday.

The owner of the pens, Cooke Aquaculture, has applications
pending to move and expand its net pen operation near Port Angeles
to an area 1.8 miles offshore in the Strait of Juan de Fuca.

Cooke, a family-owned company, acquired all of the salmon farms
in Puget Sound from Icycle Seafoods last year. The deal was touted
as a way to infuse capital and modernize operations on the West
Coast.

“The deal will enhance the family’s investments in both the wild
fishery and the aquaculture sectors, making them leaders in the
U.S. salmon farming sector and a major player in the Alaskan salmon
fishery,” said a news release about the acquisition. See the story
by Cliff White in
“SeafoodSource.”

Perhaps the company did not have time to upgrade its facilities
to reduce the risk of the net pens collapsing at Cypress Island and
other farming operations. In a
news release (PDF 251 kb), Cooke said it had applied for
permits to update its Cypress Island site. Still, this latest
incident cannot instill confidence in the company nor the salmon
farming industry as a whole.

In fact, one could argue that that the company’s extensive
“Fish Escape Prevention Plan” (PDF 1.4 mb) and
Operations Plan (2.4 mb) should have raised red flags for the
company. Cooke cited unusual tides and currents as contributing
factors in the pens’ collapse, despite the fact that these tide
levels are seen several times each year and stronger currents can
be anticipated at times.

Cooke proudly proclaims its commitment to the environment on the
company’s home page. But
shooting itself in the foot on Cypress Island will leave a bad
feeling for many Puget Sound residents. For environmental groups,
this event will provide ammunition in their effort to stop the
expansion of net pens in Puget Sound and phase out their use
entirely.

It is often pointed out that Washington is the only state on the
West Coast that allows salmon farming. (See “Our Sound, Our
Salmon.” Meanwhile, a serious debate over the pros and cons of
industrial-scale aquaculture goes on and on in British Columbia,
where more than 100 salmon farms are well established. Take a look
at reporter Gordon Hoekstra’s story in the
Vancouver Sun.

The war on salmon farms has been waging for years on both sides
of the border. While battles ought to be won or lost based on
credible information, I’ve seen facts distorted to fit political
goals on both sides of the argument.

Now the Cypress Island incident will raise the profile of the
debate in Washington state. Let’s hope that the investigation
called for by Gov. Inslee and Commissioner Franz will lead to
findings that go beyond the question of why the net pens collapsed
and look at the overall risks and benefits of keeping these salmon
farms around.

Kurt Beardslee, executive director of Wild Fish Conservancy,
told me in an email that he is working today to sample 50,000
pounds of Atlantic salmon that escaped from the Cypress Island net
pens. Experts will be looking for viruses, parasites and stomach
contents.

I believe the information about stomach contents will be
particularly valuable, because of concerns that the escaped fish
could be consuming wild salmonids — including young chinook and
steelhead, both of which are listed as threatened species.
Obviously, we don’t have enough out-migrating chinook and steelhead
as it is. (You may wish to review my recent story about salmon
recovery in the Encyclopedia
of Puget Sound.)

Meanwhile, Wild Fish Conservancy, a staunch opponent of salmon
farming, has filed notice that it intends to sue Cooke Aquaculture
for violations of the Clean Water Act.

“The Conservancy is deeply disheartened by Cooke Aquaculture’s
glaring negligence, negligence which has led to an environmental
disaster of epic proportion,” states a
news release (PDF 115 kb) from the organization. “The needless
escape of up to 305,000 Atlantic salmon into Puget Sound represents
a dire threat to already imperiled wild fish populations, beloved
marine mammal species, and the fragile Puget Sound ecosystem at
large, and Wild Fish Conservancy fears impacts to these critical
aspects of our region will be felt for years to come.”

The 60-day
“letter of intent” (PDF 1.9 mb) from Wild Fish Conservancy
outlines a number of alleged violations of federal law resulting
from the release of Atlantic salmon and the management of debris.
The group says it will seek monetary penalties of up to $52,000 a
day, as provided by law, and “injunctive relief to prevent further
violations.”

When I asked Kurt what he thought the lawsuit could accomplish,
he wrote, “Simply speaking, I believe It’s in the best interest of
our sound, our salmon and future generations to pursue all legal
avenues to quickly remove Atlantic salmon net pens from
Washington’s waters.”

In response to the Cypress Island incident, an “incident
command” structure has been set up by the Washington state
departments of Natural Resources, Fish and Wildlife, and Ecology,
along with the Office of the Governor and Emergency Management
Division. The idea is to share information and make joint decisions
about the cleanup operation.

“The release of net pen-raised Atlantic salmon into Washington’s
waters has created an emergency situation that has state agencies
working together to protect the health of our salmon…,” Gov. Inslee
said in a
statement. “Tribes and others who fish Washington waters
deserve a comprehensive response to this incident, including
answers to what happened and assurances that it won’t happen
again.

“I believe the company must do everything it can to stop any
additional escapes and to recover as many fish as possible,
including adequate compensation for those working to remove
Atlantic salmon from our waters,” he added.

A new website called
“Cypress Island Atlantic Salmon Pen Break” will be the
distribution point for public information — including “situation
updates” from Cook Aquaculture, “Next steps” from DNR, minutes from
agency conferences, news releases and other documents.

The Clallam County Hearing Examiner will hold a hearing on Sept.
7 regarding the proposed relocation and expansion of the Port
Angeles net pens. Many documents related to that application and
Cooke Aquaculture operations can be found on the website titled
Clallam County Online Permit System. Click on the permit number
for American Gold Seafoods.

It has been said that the Puget Sound ecosystem would be far
worse off today were it not for the millions of dollars spent on
restoration projects over the past 25 years.

Undoubtedly, that’s true, but I think most of us are hoping that
these costly efforts will eventually restore salmon populations
while improving conditions for other creatures as well. Shouldn’t
we be able to measure the progress?

As I describe in the story, what seems like a simple question
becomes tangled in the difficulties of measuring population and
ecological changes. It turns out that you can’t just count the fish
to see if restoration is working. That’s because natural
variabilities of weather, ocean conditions and predator/prey
populations cause salmon populations to swing wildly from year to
year no matter what you do.

While researching this story, I learned a good deal about
freshwater habitat conditions needed to help various species of
salmon to thrive. Habitat improvements resulting from restoration
projects are no doubt helping salmon in significant ways. On the
other hand, one cannot ignore human development that continues to
degrade habitat — despite improved regulations designed to reduce
the damage.

I’ve heard some people say that wild salmon would come back in
larger numbers if everyone would just stop fishing for them. This
may be true to some extent, especially for high-quality streams
that may not be getting enough salmon to spawn. But the key to the
problem is understanding the “bottlenecks” that limit salmon
survival through their entire lives.

A stream may have plenty of adult spawners, but that does not
mean the salmon runs will increase if the eggs are buried in silt
or if food supplies limit the number of fry that survive. There may
be multiple limiting factors that need to be addressed to ensure
healthy ongoing salmon populations.

Small improvements in habitat may actually boost the
productivity of salmon in a stream, meaning that more salmon will
survive. But the benefits of small projects on large streams may be
difficult to distinguish from natural variation. Statistical
analysis is used to determine whether increases or decreases in
salmon populations are more related to habitat changes or natural
variation. It takes a fairly dramatic change to link cause to
effect in a statistically significant way.

One ongoing experiment is measuring changes in fry populations
in several streams within the same watersheds. One stream is left
alone — the “control” stream — while habitat improvements are made
in others. Because the streams are closely related, biologists hope
to attribute population increases to habitat improvements with a
high level of certainty. See
Intensively Monitored Watersheds on the website of the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.

The same issue of statistics applies to the aquatic insects that
salmon eat. It appears that food supplies are improving in many
salmon streams as a result of restoration, but not all benthic
invertebrates are responding in the same way. For many streams, it
will take more time to get enough data to determine whether the
increased bug populations are statistically significant. This
happens to be one issue that I side-stepped in the latest story,
but I will be returning to it in the future. For background, check
out an earlier story I wrote for the Encyclopedia of Puget Sound,
“Healthy
Streams, Healthy Bugs.”

While habitat restoration is ongoing, so too is human
development, which continues unabated at what appears to be an
accelerating pace. New regulations are designed to result in “no
net loss” of important habitats, including shorelines, streams and
wetlands. But questions remain about whether local regulations
themselves and/or enforcement of the regulations are adequate.

Biologists at NOAA’s Northwest Fisheries Science Center are
conducting research to determine whether habitat changes are for
better or worse, especially with regard to chinook. We should see
some results within the next few years, as the agency prepares to
draft the next five-year status report for Puget Sound’s threatened
chinook population.

A long-running battle over how to manage potential fish habitat
on commercial forestland could be coming to a head — although it
isn’t clear if the solution will satisfy either forestland owners
or environmentalists.

To be clear, there is not much argument about streamside buffers
where salmon, trout and other fish are readily found, thanks to
state and federal rules stemming from the landmark Forests
and Fish Report. Buffers are designed to save trees that serve
the needs of fish — including insects for food, shade for cool
water and eventually down trees that form pools for resting as well
as hiding places and spawning areas.

Environmentalists contend that it is important to protect
unoccupied fish habitat as well as areas occupied by fish at any
point in time. If salmon populations are to rebound, salmon fry
could need extra space to grow and develop, says Jamie Glasgow, a
biologist with Wild Fish
Conservancy. That means larger buffers should go where fish
habitat can be found.

Of course, timberland owners don’t want to leave large buffers
on small stream segments where fish would never go. For them,
perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars in commercial timber could
be left standing under new rules, depending on how the state’s
Forest Practices Board comes down on this issue of fish
habitat. The board is scheduled to take up the issue again with
some kind of action planned on Aug. 9.

Fish habitat is defined in the Forest and Fish Report as areas
of a stream “used by fish at any life stage at any time of the
year, including potential habitat likely to be used by fish
which could be recovered by restoration or management and
includes off-channel habitat.” (The emphasis is mine.)

The Forest and Fish Report was incorporated into state law by
the Washington Legislature, and federal agencies adopted those
concepts as a statewide “habitat conservation plan” to protect
species listed under the Endangered Species Act, including chinook
salmon.

One of the big arguments about fish habitat revolves around how
to determine just how far upstream fish would likely go and where
they would be deterred under various natural conditions they
encounter, such as streamflow or natural barriers such as
waterfalls.

The Forest and Fish Report anticipated that a map would be
developed with all stream segments designated as either fish
habitat or not fish habitat. After several years, such a map was
developed in 2005, based on the size and steepness of the streams,
using the best information available.

It soon became apparent, however, that fish were being found in
areas marked as non-habitat on the maps. Other areas designated as
habitat were sometimes unable to support fish. Some fish-bearing
streams were not even on the maps, and some streams were in the
wrong place. I wrote about the efforts by Wild Fish Conservancy to
correct some maps three years ago (Kitsap
Sun, Sept. 27, 2014). Previous maps had proved to be a problem
as well, even before the Forest and Fish Report (Kitsap
Sun, May 28, 1996).

The maps are still used as guidance, but buffer determinations
must be made for each logging or development project based on
actual site conditions. If a stream is 2 feet wide and the
steepness is less than a 20 percent — or 16 percent in some areas —
it is assumed that fish can get there.

But — and here’s the rub — an allowable fall-back method is to
identify the presence of fish, either through snorkel surveys or by
“elecrtrofishing,” which involves putting a nonlethal current in
the water to stun the fish. Where fish are located, the area is
designated as fish habitat, along with waters that extend upstream
to a natural “break,” such as a waterfall or a stream confluence
that would prevent fish from going any farther.

Much history surrounds this issue, and all sides should be given
credit for working through many thorny habitat problems through the
years. Nobody wants to go back to a time when the spotted owl was a
symbol for conflict about whether forests were mainly for jobs or
fish and wildlife.

As for fish habitat, experts have renewed their attempt to come
up with reliable and objective methods to identify the break points
between habitat (known as “Type F waters,” which stands for fish)
and non-habitat (“Type N waters”) without the costs and impacts of
surveying every stream for fish.

Environmental groups became impatient with the effort — or lack
of effort at times — over the past 12 years — or more if you go
back to the Forest and Fish Report. The matter has gone into formal
dispute resolution, as provided by the Forest and Fish Law, and it
now is up to the
Forest Practices Board to provide a resolution.

“For the past 12 years, we have been using the interim
water-typing rule that does not protect fish habitat …,” Glasgow
said. “The interim rule allows surveyors to go to a stream anytime
(during a specified period) and electrofish a stream. If they do
not find fish during the one-day survey, they can identify it as
Type N.”

The result is that many miles of fish habitat are getting little
or no buffer protection, he argues. Where mistakes are made and
small buffers or no buffers are allowed, it will take decades
before the trees grow back to become good habitat again.

In mediation talks, the various parties — landowners,
environmental groups, tribes and governments — have come to
consensus on the overall framework to identify break points where
the fish habitat ends, but the details are still unresolved.

Karen Terwilliger, senior director of forest and environmental
policy for the Washington Forest
Protection Association, said it is important to remember that
these discussions are not about streams where adult salmon will go
to lay their eggs.

“It’s the tail end of where the fish might be,” said
Terwilliger, whose organization represents large timberland owners.
The areas in dispute are generally small streams mostly occupied
today by resident fish, including various species of trout and tiny
sculpins.

The break point between fish and non-fish areas should be a
location where the last fish is equally likely to stop above and
below that point, she said. The scientific standard is that the
break point should be accurate 95 percent of the time, as required
by
adaptive management provisions of the Forest and Fish Law.

“We think fish presence will always be an important part of the
system,” she said. “Different streams are different. A ‘one size
fits all’ does not make sense.”

Environmental groups prefer to avoid methods that rely upon
people finding fish, which may or may not be present at the time of
a survey. It should be possible to define habitat conditions
suitable for fish whether or not they are there at a given
time.

Scientific information has evolved to where predictions can be
made about where fish will go, Terwilliger said, but there are
still questions about what conditions create a barrier to fish. A
level of scientific certainty is required before changes can go
forward.

“If science says a change needs to be made, then you more
forward to make the change,” she said. “To date, we have not seen
data that a lot of changes need to be made.”

If a rule change is proposed, it will need to undergo
environmental review, a cost-benefit analysis, a small-business
economic impact statement and public hearings.

Peter Goldman, director and managing attorney at Washington Forest Law Center,
said the adaptive management process should be more than a system
of delays. Only recently have things been moving in the right
direction, he added.

“We have been trying to negotiate in good faith collaboratively,
because that is the Washington way,” he said. “If the Forest
Practices Board doesn’t act … it is conceivable that we will have
to sue the board and ask the federal government to reconsider the
HCP.”

Stephen Bernath, deputy supervisor for forest practices at the
Washington Department of Natural Resources and chairman of Forest
Practices Board, said the board is moving forward with the help of
scientists. New ideas and new technology are being brought into the
discussion with the goal of seeing whether a variety of physical
parameters alone can be used to identify fish habitat with high
probability.

At the Aug. 9 meeting, the board is scheduled to get an update
on the progress and to act on staff recommendations about the
breaks between fish and non-fish waters. After that, a formal
process will begin to incorporate changes into policies, rules and
guidance.

Because no population of salmon has ever been taken off the
Endangered Species List, nobody knows exactly how to go about it.
Still, Hood Canal summer chum, a threatened species, could be
proposed for delisting within about five years.

“I think we are in the home stretch for recovery,” declared
Scott Brewer, executive director of the Hood Canal Coordinating
Council, opening a day-long symposium about the future of Hood
Canal summer chum.

“I’m not going to declare victory,” Scott cautioned. “You are
not going to see a sign behind me saying ‘mission
accomplished.’”

Total run size of Hood Canal
summer chum in Hood Canal, not including extinct subpopulations //
Graphic: Hood Canal Coordinating
Council

And yet, after discussing the remarkable gains in summer chum
populations in many local streams, experts at yesterday’s symposium
in Bremerton became focused almost exclusively on what it would
take to delist this unique population of chum salmon, which lives
in Hood Canal and the eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca.

Hood Canal summer chum were listed as threatened under the
Endangered Species Act in 1999. By then, state and tribal officials
had already taken actions to reduce commercial harvests of these
fish and to boost production with temporary hatcheries. A federal
recovery plan formalized actions and goals to restore the overall
population. The plan also spelled out criteria for eventually
removing summer chum from the Endangered Species List.

Total run size of Hood Canal
summer chum in Strait of Juan de FucaGraphic: Hood Canal Coordinating
Council

The main goal for recovery has been to restore at least one
viable run of summer chum in each geographic area where the fish
were known to exist. The criteria require an abundance of fish
returning and successfully spawning in key areas each year. To
ensure that the overall population survives at least 100 years, the
various subpopulations need to be diverse — both in their stream
location and in their genetic makeup.

Thanks to restoration efforts, the geographical diversity of
summer chum appears to meet the delisting goals for the west side
of Hood Canal on the Olympic Peninsula — including strong runs in
the Quilcene, Dosewallips, Duckabush and Hamma Hamma rivers. But on
the opposite side of the canal, on the Kitsap Peninsula, only the
Union River stock near Belfair has done well. Efforts to restore
summer chum with hatchery projects on Big Beef Creek and the Tahuya
River were declared unsuccessful. Meanwhile, summer chum on their
own have failed to recolonize the Dewatto River and Big Anderson
Creek, where the populations went extinct in the 1980s.

While current conditions might meet the recovery goal for
geographical diversity, many summer chum biologists would like to
see at least one more success story on the east side of Hood Canal,
according to Larry Lestelle, a consultant with Biostream
Environmental who is assisting the Hood Canal Coordinating Council
with its plans to restore summer chum.

Big Beef Creek might be a candidate for another hatchery
project, Larry said, noting that recent restoration projects have
restored habitat in the stream. Better habitat would likely
increase survival for summer chum in Big Beef.

In addition, transplanting Union River stock to Big Beef Creek
the next time around could improve survival over the Quilcene River
stock that was used last time, he said. Studies suggest that the
extinct Big Beef summer chum were more closely related to those in
the Union River than to those in the Quilcene, he added.

Another option would be to launch a small-scale hatchery project
on the Dewatto River south of Holly. Conditions in the stream and
estuary are still relatively natural, compared to other streams in
the region.

When to formally propose delisting to the federal government
remains a major question to be answered. Following years of study,
salmon biologists have concluded that Hood Canal summer chum
generally survive in greater numbers during so-called “cool phases”
in the Pacific Ocean. The shift from warm to cool and back again
over 20 to 30 years is known as the Pacific Decadal
Oscillation.

Recent recovery of Hood Canal summer chum has corresponded with
the more productive cool phase, Larry noted. In January 2014, ocean
conditions abruptly shifted into a warm phase. Effects — such as
reduced survival in and near the streams — are fairly quickly
observed in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, but the same effects in
Hood Canal are typically delayed by about two years.

“This provides a test,” Larry told an audience of experts and
other interested folks at Kitsap Conference Center. “We are staring
it in the face. It is time to sit on the edge of our seats and
anxiously await… Are the spawners going to come in?”

The answers should become clear during migrations of adult
summer chum to Hood Canal from 2018 to 2022, Larry said. The end of
that period could be a good time to decide whether to move forward
with a delisting proposal — especially if summer chum runs remain
strong during the current warm phase in the PDO cycle.

Meanwhile, the effects of long-term climate change also must be
considered in the effort to save the summer chum from extinction.
Over the coming years, climatologists predict more extreme
conditions, including higher winter streamflows that can wash
salmon eggs out of the gravel and possibly smother them with
silt.

The answer to climate change is to give the salmon a better
chance of survival by protecting and restoring floodplains and
increasing stream channel complexity. These actions can reduce the
rushing waters and help salmon find refuge against the flows.

“The year 2022 could be a decision year, but not necessarily THE
decision year,” Larry said. “It is all about letting the fish tell
us what is going on.”

Jennifer Quan of NOAA said she is eager to work with local
experts to keep restoring the Hood Canal summer chum and eventually
assist in legally removing the fish from the Endangered Species
List.

“We spent a lot of time over the last decade getting good at
listing species,” she said. “Now we are starting to see that turn
around. We are starting to develop new skills for delisting.”

Last year, NOAA denied a request to delist the Snake River fall
chinook, one of 13 populations of Columbia Basin salmon and
steelhead protected under the Endangered Species Act. The request
came from a group of commercial fishers in Alaska — the Chinook
Future Coalition — which said protecting the Snake River fish
throughout their range could limit chinook harvests off the coast
of Alaska. Even though good numbers of chinook were returning, NOAA
biologists were concerned that only one subpopulation was viable
because of Hell’s Canyon Dam on the Snake River. Potential
delisting scenarios were described in a
question-and-answer format (PDF 531 kb).

In 2015, the Oregon chub, a small minnow found only in the
Willamette River Basin, became the first fish in the nation to be
delisted under the Endangered Species Act. See the news
release from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. That delisting
process could provide some guidance for Hood Canal summer chum,
Jennifer said.

Hood Canal Coordinating Council, which oversees summer chum
recovery, is made up of county commissioners in Kitsap, Mason and
Jefferson counties, along with the leaders of the Skokomish and
Port Gamble S’Klallam tribes. As HCCC director, Scott Brewer said
he is prepared to continue discussions right away with experts and
others interesting in developing a step-by-step plan for delisting
Hood Canal summer chum.

If you are thinking of another Hood Canal stream — the one that
you cross north of Seabeck while traveling on Anderson Hill Road —
that would be right, too.

And nobody could complain if you believe that Anderson Creek is
the name of the stream that flows into Sinclair Inlet near
Gorst.

Officially, they are all Anderson Creek, according to the
Geographic Names Information
System, the official database of true names. GNIS is maintained
by the U.S. Geological Survey.

I discovered the existence of three Anderson Creeks in Kitsap
County as I sat down to blog about a new bridge project being
planned on Seabeck-Holly Road north of Holly — over a stream I have
always called Big Anderson Creek.

These are the opening lines of the county’s announcement about
the bridge work: “Kitsap County Public Works begins construction of
a new bridge on Seabeck-Holly Road at the Anderson Creek crossing
beginning July 18, 2017.”

I immediately thought that someone in Public Works must have
accidentally shortened the name from Big Anderson Creek to Anderson
Creek, but I guess I was wrong. I mean, doesn’t everyone call it
Big Anderson Creek?

I conducted an online search for “Big Anderson Creek” in Kitsap.
Many reliable sources have been calling it Big Anderson Creek in
dozens of documents for at least several decades. To name a few of
the agencies using the “wrong” name:

Little Anderson Creek, the one farther north, is in the same
boat as Big Anderson Creek. A lot of people use the descriptive
“Big” and “Little” when talking about the two streams, but
officially they are wrong, according to my assessment.

Ed Smith, Public Works project manager for the bridge
construction, told me that he will keep calling it “Anderson
Creek.” That’s the official name on the maps that he uses. It is
also the name listed on the “hydraulic project approval” issued by
the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife to authorize
construction.

Through the years, I’ve written quite a lot about confusing and
conflicting names, but I never had a clue about the discrepancy
involving Big and Little Anderson creeks. If someone reading this
has the time and dedication to officially change the names of these
two streams, I don’t think anyone would object. The process begins
with an application to the
Washington State Committee on Geographic Names. The committee’s
coordinator, Caleb Maki, can help people work their way through the
process. Please let me know if you tackle this project.

Meanwhile, I will continue using the popular nomenclature of Big
and Little Anderson creeks.

As for the new bridge over Big Anderson Creek, a 50-foot
concrete structure will replace the aging 29-foot timber bridge
built in 1950. The opening for the stream will increase from about
28 feet to about 45 feet, Smith said. That will give the stream
slightly more room to shift around during heavy flows.

Work will begin July 18 and wrap up around December, according
to the schedule. Seabeck-Holly Road, the main route to and from
Holly, will be reduced to one lane during the construction.

The $1.67-million construction project will be carried out by
Pacific Pile and Marine of Seattle. An artist’s rendering of the
completed structure and other information can be seen on the Kitsap
County website titled “Seabeck-Holly
Road Bridge #20 at Anderson Creek.”

If the U.S. government fails to take action on climate change, a
majority of Americans would like their states to pick up the ball
and run with it.

Some 66 percent of those participating in a national survey
agreed with the statement: “If the federal government fails to
address the issue of global warming, it is my state’s
responsibility to address the problem.”

Question: “Please
identify your level of agreement with the following statement … If
the federal government fails to address the issue of global
warming, it is my state’s responsibility to address the problem.”
(Click to enlarge)Graphic: University of Michigan/Muhlenberg
College

Residents of Washington state appear to feel even stronger about
the need for state action, according to a survey by The Nature
Conservancy, which is preparing for a statewide initiative to be
placed on the 2018 general election ballot.

The
national survey, by two University of Michigan researchers,
demonstrates growing support among Americans for action on climate
change, despite very little action by Congress. The last time the
question was asked, in 2013, 48 percent of respondents wanted their
states to take action. The latest results show an 18-percent
increase in the number of people who support state action.

This and several other polls reveal growing concerns among
Americans about the negative effects of climate change on human
civilization as well as the environment.

Interestingly, the national survey was taken between April 17
and May 16 — before President Trump announced that he would
withdraw U.S. support for the Paris climate agreement, which
includes clear targets for greenhouse gas reductions. Respondents
may have been aware of Trump’s executive order in March to
dismantle former President Obama’s Clean Power Plan, which aims to
reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.

Americans are still somewhat divided along party lines, with
Democrats more supportive of state action than Republicans. But the
latest national survey reveals that more Republicans may support
state action than not, at least within the survey’s margin of
error. The survey shows that 51 percent of Republicans believe that
states should step up to climate change, compared to 34 percent
four years ago.

Support among Democrats for state action went from 57 percent in
2013 to 77 percent this year.

Another survey taken after Trump was elected showed that nearly
two-thirds (62 percent) of the people who voted for him support
taxing or regulating greenhouse gas emissions, and nearly half (47
percent) agreed that the U.S. should support the Paris climate
agreement. See
“Trump Voters and Global Warming.”

I will return to the national perspective in a moment, but first
some almost-breaking news from Washington state, where The Nature
Conservancy on Monday filed three petitions for possible ballot
measures with the Secretary of State’s Office.

All three petitions deal with possible state actions on climate
change, but none of them are intended to be used for signature
gathering, according to Mo McBroom, government relations director
for TNC. The idea, Mo told me, is to see how the Attorney General’s
Office writes the ballot titles for the three measures, which is
what a voter would read on the ballot.

Polling of Washington state voters after the defeat of a
carbon-tax measure in last fall’s election showed that most voters
knew little about the content of Initiative 732 when they cast
their ballots. Also contributing to the confusion was the ballot
title itself, which mentioned taxes but failed to explain that
increased taxes on fossil fuels would be offset by reduced sales
and business taxes plus a tax rebate for low-income residents.

I should point out that a fair number of environmental groups
voiced opposition to the measure, in part because it failed to
provide money for clean-energy initiatives. And some worried that
the measure would add to state budget problems. More than anything,
the mixed messages probably killed the measure.

Now, all the environmental groups as well as business and
government supporters are hoping to come together around a single
initiative with a high likelihood of success, Mo told me. The
specifics of the real initiative are still under review, she said,
and one should glean nothing from the
three different proposals submitted this week. Once the details
are worked out, a final petition will be submitted next
January.

“The most important thing is that we are looking to build the
broadest base of support for solutions to climate change.,” Mo told
me. “Whether it is a carbon tax or fee or a regulatory structure,
it is about how we, as a society, make the investments that the
public wants.” For further discussion, read Mo’s blog entry posted
yesterday in Washington Nature
Field Notes.

Personally, I will be watching for the transportation aspects of
the coming initiative, since more than half of the greenhouse gas
emissions in Washington state involve the transportation sector —
and Mo acknowledged that incentives to encourage cleaner fuels will
be essential.

“We want to create an approach that is technology neutral,” she
said. “we’re not picking winners and losers. We are creating
innovate solutions.”

According to
polling last fall (PDF 596 kb), 81 percent of Washington voters
believe climate change is happening; 62 percent believe it is
caused by human activities; and 69 percent support state action to
reduce carbon pollution. Support may be even higher today. The
survey was conducted by FM3 Research and Moore Information for The
Nature Conservancy and Vulcan.

The national survey by University of Michigan researchers this
spring showed that 70 percent of Americans across the country
believe that global warming is happening. Barry Rabe, one of the
researchers, told me that public opinion has ebbed and flowed
somewhat on this issue since these surveys were started in 2008.
See the graphic below, or check out the details on the
Brookings blog.

Question: From what
you’ve read and heard, is there solid evidence that the average
temperature on earth has been getting warmer over the past four
decades?Graphic: University of Michigan/Muhlenberg
College

During the early years of former President Obama’s
administration beginning around 2009, “there was a very aggressive
effort by opposition groups that argued that climate change is a
hoax,” Rabe said. “That probably had an impact (on people’s
opinions).”

Now people seem to be returning to a stronger belief in climate
change and tending to support the understanding that humans are
responsible. Democrats and Republicans alike seem to feeling more
urgency to take action.

“This may be a case where political figures are at variance with
their base,” Rabe said, noting that most Republicans in Congress
are showing no inclination to address the issue. But even in some
conservative states, such as Texas and Kansas, state lawmakers are
doing more than ever to address climate change, in part because of
parallel economic interests involving renewable energy.

“Energy politics breaks down very differently depending on the
state you are in,” Rabe said.

From a national perspective, all eyes will be on Washington
state over the next year or two, as people throughout the country
watch to see how people here address climate change, Rabe said. A
lot of folks wondered about the rejection of the climate-change
initiative in what many view as a pro-environment state, he added.
People nationwide did not grasp the nuances of last fall’s vote,
but they are interested in what comes next.

Gov. Jay Inslee joined with the governors of California and New
York in signing onto a new U.S. Climate Alliance to help meet the
goals of the Paris agreement in light of Trump’s efforts to
withdraw from the pact. See Timothy Cama’s piece in
The Hill.

California and New York have already passed
climate-change-emissions legislation, Rave said, so people across
the country are wondering how Washington plans to meet its
commitment.

Mo McBroom of The Nature Conservancy said officials involved in
the climate-change issue in Washington state embrace the leadership
role that this state can play.

Nineteen years ago this month, then-Governor Gary Locke made a
bold declaration about salmon that would echo through time:
“Extinction is not an option.”

Juvenile chinook salmon depend
on high-quality habitat for their survival.Photo: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

It was a call to action that would lead to major protection and
restoration efforts throughout Puget Sound. Still, today, chinook
salmon have not experienced a population rebound, as many people
had hoped. The failure to thrive has been a disappointment to many,
yet we are often reminded that it took 150 years to push salmon to
the brink of extinction and it will not be easy to ensure their
future.

Last week, concerns about the survival of chinook salmon
prompted a coalition of Puget Sound tribes to propose a series of
“bold actions,” as I reported in the
Encyclopedia of Puget Sound, later reprinted in the
Kitsap Sun.

“The way we are managing lands is not working,” stated salmon
expert Dave Herrera, speaking for the tribes. “It may be working
for people, but it is not working for fish.”

The bold actions, spelled out in a
three-page proposal (PDF 380 kb), include greater controls on
the use of land and water, among other things. I won’t describe the
details, which you can read in the memo. The ideas were prompted by
a new Chinook Salmon Implementation Strategy, designed to
accelerate an increase in the Puget Sound chinook population.

The tribes complained that the proposed strategy, as drafted,
mostly mimicked the 10-year-old
Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan. That plan has made limited
progress in restoring wild salmon runs, despite millions of dollars
spent to protect and restore habitat while limiting fishing and
controlling hatchery production.

In his
speech of June 1998, Gov. Locke worried about the risk of
extinction for these migratory fish, which are an economic asset as
well as a celebrated symbol of the Northwest.

Former Gov. Gary
Locke

“In several Puget Sound watersheds, our wild salmon have less
than a decade to live, unless we act now,” Locke said in 1998. “And
in many more rivers and streams, if the status quo continues, our
wild salmon will be gone before my daughter Emily graduates from
high school. So we just don’t have any time to waste. For better or
for worse, we are about to make history.”

Locke’s speech was indeed historic, as he launched an
unprecedented endeavor to rebuild salmon runs at great financial
cost. The governor seemed to understand the challenge, as I noted
at the time in my coverage of the speech before more than 100
county officials in Tacoma:

“Locke appears to be glancing over his shoulder, ready to duck
for cover, as he talks about the financial and political
commitments required to keep salmon from disappearing in various
parts of the state,” I wrote.

“We need to wake up every morning ready to challenge the status
quo,” Locke said, adding that basic changes are needed in the way
businesses and average citizens use their land and water
resources.

“There is a risk,” Locke said, “in just delivering that message,
let alone acting on it.”

The following year, the Washington Legislature created the
Salmon Recovery Funding Board to prioritize state and federal
funding for salmon recovery. And the next governor, Chris Gregoire,
ushered in an even greater ecosystem-recovery effort under guidance
of the Puget Sound Partnership.

Today, I can’t help but wonder what would have happened without
these salmon- and ecosystem-recovery efforts. Would the salmon be
gone, as Locke predicted? It’s hard to say, but researchers have
learned a great deal about what salmon need to survive, and the
money is being better targeted toward those needs. As a result, it
is understandable why some people are both disappointed with the
past and hopeful for the future.

One of the great challenges facing public officials today is to
find ways for local governments to truly live up to the standard of
“no net loss” of ecological function — a standard required by the
state’s Growth Management Act. When new developments affect
“critical areas” — such as fish and wildlife habitat — they must
include vegetated buffers and stormwater controls to minimize the
damage. Then they must enhance degraded habitat — either on-site or
off-site — to make up for losses that cannot be avoided.

I used to believe that this goal was unachievable, and I have
questioned many state experts about it. How can any developer
construct a commercial or residential development and walk away
with no net loss of habitat function? The answer is to include a
serious restoration component.

One example is the Hood Canal Coordinating Council’s In-Lieu Fee
Program, which I wrote about last month in
Water Ways (May 19). This program was started on a large scale
to mitigate for construction at the Navy’s submarine base at
Bangor, but it also works on a small scale, as I mentioned in that
blog post.

When an older site is redeveloped, there may be no ecological
loss, since the damage was done in the past. But when a developer
builds in a new location, the local government is charged with
measuring the loss, coming to terms for mitigation and making sure
the mitigation is carried out. The concept of “no net loss” works
only if the mitigation is permanent — another major challenge in
many areas.

If no net loss can be achieved while major restoration efforts
continue, we will see a net increase in salmon habitat in the Puget
Sound region, and that will be a cause of celebration. One success
has been in the program Floodplains by Design,
which improves critical off-channel habitat for salmon while
reducing flooding problems for nearby residents. Checkout the story
I wrote for the Encyclopedia
of Puget Sound and the blog post in
Water Ways, April 15.

Washington State Department of Commerce, which oversees the
Growth Management Act, is in the process of updating its
Critical Areas Assistance Handbook (PDF 6 mb), which serves as
guidance for local regulations. New information about how to
protect habitat for all life stages of salmon will be a key
addition to a revised version, soon to be released for public
review. See the
CAO page on the Department of Commerce website.

Local governments in every part of the state must become part of
the discussion if we expect them to carry out the mandate of
protecting habitat for salmon. Money for planning and regulatory
enforcement must be worked out. One idea I’ve heard is a regional
approach that involves a group of compliance officials working to
enforce the rules for multiple counties and cities.

No doubt the salmon-recovery effort must be improved. Challenges
remain for issues including fishing, predation by marine mammals
and climate change. But if the protection and restoration of salmon
habitat can outpace unmitigated damage from development, we may be
justified in believing that extinction is not an option.

Up to 14 abandoned buildings or otherwise underused properties
in Bremerton will undergo pollution assessments with an eye toward
ultimate restoration, thanks to $300,000 in federal “brownfields”
funds.

The old K-Mart building in East
Bremerton is one of many properties that might benefit from a new
brownfields grant awarded to the city of Bremerton.File photo: Meegan Reid, Kitsap Sun

The pollution assessments are considered a first step in
restoring life to properties that have been neglected because of
the high cost of investigating and cleaning up hazardous substances
on the sites.

The city of Bremerton targeted four neighborhoods in its grant
application, which has been given conditional approval by the
Environmental Protection Agency. These are the specific areas with
descriptions from the city’s application:

I must admit that I have an uneasy curiosity to see how Congress
will manage programs that protect human health and the environment
now that Republican legislators are in control of both the House
and Senate with no concerns about a budget veto.

Most environmental laws and programs are the result of
hard-fought compromise between Democrats and Republicans who
somehow agreed on ideas to make the world a safer place for people
and wildlife. Do Republican members of Congress really want to back
away from those advances? Do they want to explain to their
constituents why clean air, clean water and safe food are not as
important as they once were?

I was fascinated to read that Republican senators and
representatives in the Great Lakes states could be a key to saving
federal funding for Chesapeake Bay — and, by the same token, Puget
Sound, the Gulf of Mexico and other major restoration projects.